The impact of the US environmental consensus
Americans disagree on the best way to ensure a clean environment, but for more than half a century they have stood by Target a clean environment. They even agree that government has a role to play in making sure we get there. They disagree on the nature of the government’s role. People want a clean environment because they associate environmental quality with personal and family health. Although there is too much poverty and hunger in America, most Americans believe they will have food, clothing and shelter. Most Americans are not poor. When basic needs are relatively guaranteed, people are free to focus on health. They ask: Is the food I eat nutritious for me and my family? Are my kids and I getting enough exercise? These are problems that people can solve on their own because they can control their diet and free time. However, there are also life factors beyond our control that can affect our health:
- Likelihood of violent crime, extreme weather, or random events such as car accidents.
- Polluted air, water and release of toxic substances into air, water or land.
Reducing the risks posed by these threats will require collective action by governments. These threats cannot be reduced through individual action.
People in East Palestine, Ohio were exposed to toxic substances as a result of a train accident. People in Flint, Michigan were exposed to lead poisoning in their water due to incompetent government officials. People around the world are facing an increasing number of extreme weather events, made more severe and frequent by global warming. Climate change is a tougher issue for the public because its causes are global and it takes more than our senses to connect cause and effect. Dirty air, water and toxic substances in our environment are obvious, visible and localized. No one wants it. In the mid-twentieth century, environmental protection was seen as an aesthetic issue. Pollution is unsightly and unpleasant, but it is not seen as a threat to our wellbeing. That era believed that tobacco smoke was good for health. By the 1970s and 80s, we learned that pollution can make you sick, and if it’s toxic, it can kill you and harm a fetus. This lesson was echoed profoundly in the chronic illness of first responders in the toxic “pile” left by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
Awareness of the health effects of pollution is widespread and unfiltered by ideology. A topic of constant debate is the role of government in preventing pollution, but sometimes things are so bad that a political consensus is possible. Democratic and Republican senators from Ohio are leading a bipartisan effort to regulate train safety following a toxic train accident in East Palestine.according to wall street journal reporter Natalie Andrews and Esther Fung:
“The Ohio senator is leading a bipartisan effort to deal with Last month’s train derailed Their state is proposing legislation that would subject railroads to a host of new federal safety regulations and increase fines for wrongdoing.Ohio Senators Sherrod Brown and JD Vance, along with Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Bob Casey (D-PA) and John Fetterman (D-PA) people) .), introduced legislation on Wednesday aimed at preventing future train accidents such as Derailed on February 3 of norfolk south Corp. rail cars near East Palestine, Ohio.event attracted attention About long-term health risks near and around a village of 4,700 people. Senators said the bill would strengthen safety procedures for trains carrying hazardous materials, establish a requirement for roadside defect detectors, make a permanent requirement for railroad operations to have at least two crew members and increase penalties for rail carriers committing crimes. fines for misconduct.
Even in this era of fierce partisan politics, our elected officials understand that these rules are necessary to ensure public safety. While regulating guns in the United States is nearly impossible, regulating the business of transportation does not generate the same level of ideological intensity. In addition, the threat of exposure to toxic substances triggers everyone’s fear of cancer, a little-known health threat that directly or indirectly affects many people.
What does this consensus behind environmental protection mean, and why is it important? Even as Americans disagree on specific environmental policies, organizations and individuals across the United States are concerned about their impact on environmental quality. When designing a new product or service, engineers and project managers consider environmental impact as a design parameter: How much energy are we using? What is the source of energy? How much waste do we generate? How do we dispose of waste? What toxic substances are produced here, and how can we prevent them from harming people and the planet?now these questions indispensable, rather than peripheral, business decisions. Reducing waste and improving energy efficiency are seen as ways to reduce costs and improve competitiveness. Ignorance of environmental risk is seen as management incompetence, as it can be a cause of financial loss. As Norfolk Southern Railway is now learning its lesson, releasing toxic substances into the environment could result in significant unplanned expenditure.
These lessons are being baked into our culture and are finding their way into organizational life. Governments have to create rules to define and limit pollution, but the actual reduction of pollution will mostly happen in our private sector. Regulations set the rules of the road, but the private sector does most of the driving. What is so important in our politics, yet so poorly understood, is that the consensus behind a clean environment is leading to dramatic changes in business decision-making. The cost of protecting the environment remains part of the decision-making process, but integrating environmental protection into that process is fundamental to the large-scale changes now underway.
The transition to a renewable resource-based economy has already begun, based on an environmental consensus. This is one of the themes of my new book: Environmentally Sustainable Growth: A Pragmatic Approach. I conclude the book by summarizing the steps the government is taking to promote renewable energy and electric vehicles, and by highlighting three companies that have integrated environmental sustainability into their business models: Etsy, Apple, and Walmart. In addition to these well-known companies, almost all of the top 500 companies in the Standard & Poor’s list are preparing annual ESG reports. While some of this is greenwashing and public relations, most reflect changes in our social and organizational culture to promote the fundamental value of a clean environment.
My new book also urges environmental advocates to end commercial and consumer shaming. People who run private companies and people who drive SUVs or look for food or entertainment are not evil. Our politics today monetize difference. Internet solicitation of funds is more effective if based on the threat posed by hypothetical bad actors. In today’s political world, the goal of building a broad consensus seems lost. Nonetheless, the shift towards an environmentally sustainable environment is underway and will mainly take place in the private sector as it will make companies more profitable. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels and will only get cheaper over time. Reducing waste and waste mining will ultimately save money and increase profitability. The profits earned by sustainable management allow companies to ignore accusations by conservatives that they are “woke” and by environmentalists that they are evil. As the case of the Biden administration shows, governments can accelerate the transition to environmental sustainability by providing cash and tax incentives to invest in a green economy.
The major environmental breakthroughs of the 1970s and early 1980s were based on broad American consensus: the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, the Resource Conservation and Restoration Act of 1976, The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and the Superfund Toxic Waste Cleanup Act of 1980 were landmark environmental legislation. The rules based on these laws are subject to controversy and debate, but ultimately, the legal structure of environmental protection in the United States remains. No U.S. Congress will repeal these laws. They perpetuate because environmental protection has been added to a fundamental and irreducible function of government: protecting people from harm. The public knows that environmental degradation can cause harm. This broad consensus is based on facts, built on public support for health, and embedded in our culture as a fundamental value.
